Interviews: The preferred data collection method

An inner perspective of interviewing is given by Oakley (1981, p41);

“Interviewing is rather like a marriage: everybody knows what it is, an awful lot of people do it, and yet behind each closed door there is a world of secrets.”

Possibly a more conventional definition of what interviews are, is, “A form of communication with the aim of producing different forms of information with individuals or with groups,” (Seale, 2011).

Also, interviews can be used in conducting qualitative research when, “The researcher is interested in collecting “facts”, or gaining insights into or understanding of opinions, attitudes, experiences, processes, behaviours, or predictions,” (Rowley, 2012, p261). Furthermore, interviews can be conducted on different levels, such as differing levels of formality: formal, where the setting and roles are defined, such as ‘office’ and ‘interviewer’ or ‘interviewee,’ and the interview type is generally structured; and informal, where the setting and roles are less defined, such as over coffee, and the interview type is usually unstructured (O'Leary, 2004).

Interviews, types and alternative approaches

An adapted summary of some of the key features of in-depth interviewing, according to (Wengraf, 2001, pp3-6) is given below:

• Designed to improve knowledge – develops a ‘model’ of some aspect of reality in accordance with the ‘facts’ about that reality

• Similar to a conversation but with special features requiring understanding – is mindful of human interaction and all of the trappings that accompany it

84

• Planned and prepared for but deliberately half-or quarter-scripted – can be time consuming both during the planning and analysis stages, requires a disciplined researcher

• Semi-structured, largely improvised by the researcher – interviewee’s responses cannot be predicted

• A joint production between interviewer and interviewee – interviewer must be prepared to listen and respond, particularly to interviewee narratives

• Goes into matters ‘in-depth’ – extracts more detailed knowledge, goes beyond the surface

Thus, in-depth interviews provide insight into the interviewee’s thoughts, feelings and experiences, where the primary focus for the interviewer is to collate ideas which can help to both thicken and deepen the research by adding further dimensions. This exploratory style of interviewing is time consuming to conduct and to analyse but the benefits of breathing fresh ideas and concepts into the research are considered enough to compensate (Oppenheim, 2005), an opinion shared by Kleinman et al (1994, p43):

“Respondents may reveal feelings, beliefs, and private doubts that contradict or conflict with

“what everyone thinks,” including sentiments that break dominant feeling rules.”

Indeed, the flexible nature of interviews produce a narrative that can be further explored if required is what distinguishes them from questionnaires, where the communication is more limited and there is no room for probing preliminary responses. “This gives a richness to the data, allowing many individual differences in opinions and reasoning to be uncovered,” (Keats 2000, p20).

For these reasons of flexibility and enrichment, using interviews as a data collection method for all of the steps within phase one of this study was the most attractive option out of the four different alternatives explored.

First, interviews can be undertaken in a number of ways, namely; structured, group, and semi- and unstructured interviews (Schwandt, 2001). Second, they can be conducted via different media, either face-to-face or by the telephone, for example, (Seale, 2011).

The three main types of interview to focus on are: (Walliman 2006, p92)

1. Structured interview – standardised questions read out by the interviewer according to an interview schedule. Answers may be closed format.

85

2. Unstructured interview – a flexible format, usually based on a question guide but where the format remains the choice of the interviewer, who can allow the interview to

‘ramble’ in order to get insights into the attitudes of the interviewee. No closed questions are used.

3. Semi-structured interview – one that contains structured and unstructured sections with standardised and open-format questions.

A strength of a structured interview is that the analysis can be quick and simple to perform as the responses can be easily comparable (Patton, 2002). However, there could be weakness where the interviewer is responsible for setting the agenda and directing the responses. For instance, there is little freedom of reply for the interviewee, because the information they are presented with is imposed, “By selecting the theme and topics; by ordering the questions and by wording the questions in his or her language,” (Bauer, 1996, p2).

For unstructured interviews, there is thought that the interviewee can find the experience enjoyable as they are at liberty to discuss their own ideas, although this can present a challenge for the interviewer to keep the participant focussed in a non-leading manner (O'Leary, 2014).

The analysis stage can also be more onerous as interviewees will expound differently so there is less cohesive data to draw together (Patton, 2002).

Semi-structured interviews then, might provide a favourable balance between the two other types, but Wengraf (2001, p5) warns against the notion, “They (semi-structured interviews) are high-preparation, high-risk, high-gain, and high-analysis operations.” That said, semi-structured interviews can provide interesting and unexpected data despite the challenges (O’Leary, 2014), and although remaining fairly conversational, with room for logical gaps to be identified and closed, a laborious analysis stage is to be expected (Patton, 2002).

In more practical terms, face-to-face, or in-person interviews are considered to have several advantages over telephone interviews as they can be conducted in any relevant location, they are considered to be conducive to gaining particularly detailed data and can incorporate the use of visual aids (Frey and Oishi, 1995). Indeed, “Face-to-face interviewing has become the most common type of qualitative research method used in order to find out about people’s experiences in context, and the meanings these hold,” (Holloway and Jefferson, 2000). The interviewer is also well placed to assess the quality of responses and body language of the interviewee to ensure correct understanding of the questions and encourage full replies (Walliman, 2006).

86

Nevertheless, there are also practical disadvantages such as higher field costs (Frey and Oishi, 1995), plus there is the issue of bias. For instance, the personal characteristics of the interviewer, or nuances in the way that questions are asked could influence the responses of the interviewee, likewise the interviewee may wish to give responses (verbally or by using non-verbal gestures) that they feel are socially acceptable, or promote their own surreptitious cause (Seale, 2011).

The advantages of low cost and high convenience make telephone interviewing a popular data collection method among researchers (Nachmias and Nachmias, 2000). Yet, telephone interviews are not without disadvantages too as they give no visual clues such as facial expressions, or details about the business environment (Walliman, 2006), in which case they could be considered to produce less information than face-to-face interviews. Furthermore, telephone interviews are considered to have higher break off rates (when the interviewee terminates the call) than when interviews are conducted in person, plus it can be more difficult to discuss delicate topics via the telephone (Seale, 2001).

Semi-structured interviews, conducted on a one to one interview basis rather than as a focus group or informal group discussion were preferred because they, “can help structure data collection while keeping the focus sufficiently broad to allow for hidden or emerging themes,”

(Varvasovszky and Brugha, 2000, p. 341).

As such, the method also seems to be accommodating towards participants (academics, stakeholders and experts) who are open to discussing their views and opinions, or in this case, their perspectives on car parking. More specifically, telephone interviews are considered to be both cost effective and convenient when compared with the face-to-face method. With this in mind, a combination of semi-structured, in-depth interviews were thought to be able to provide the richness and quality of data required in order to complete steps one and two of phase one successfully, while unstructured, in-depth interviews were considered the best method for step three.

The purpose of step three was to bridge the gap, between phase one and phase two of the methodology and to set the scene for the quantitative aspect involved in phase two. As such the interviews in step three were required to provide a touch of realism to the context of the experimental nature of phase two. Unstructured, in-depth interviews were selected as, according to (Patton, 2002, p343),

87

“Being unstructured doesn’t mean that conversational interviews are unfocused. Sensitizing concepts and the overall purpose of the inquiry inform the interviewing. But within that overall guiding purpose, the interviewer is free to go where the data and respondents lead.”

Furthermore, combining interview approaches can bring benefits to the research. Room for flexibility allows for topics to be explored at discretion, as different interview participants are afforded freedom to narrate their different individual experiences and perspectives, and the researcher can establish the data relevance, (Patton, 2002).

According to Silverman (2011, p418) there are three main issues that are habitually raised by Western research ethical guidelines:

• Codes and consent

• Confidentiality

• Trust

To address these issues, Loughborough University's Ethical Approval (Human Participants) procedure was followed, whereby; an ethical clearance checklist to conduct the interviews was completed and lodged with the relevant administration; an information sheet providing detailed reassurance regarding confidentiality and the nature of the research and publication issues; and, an informed consent form, were emailed to all of the participating academics.

Once approval was given and the informed consent forms were received back, all three of the issues were considered satisfied and the interviews were undertaken.

The interviews throughout steps one and two were recorded to aid accurate transcription as is recommended by (Oppenheim, 2005), but not for the step three interviews, where a detailed transcription was not necessary and notes would suffice.